Turning Confession, The Sacrament Of Mercy, Into An Abysmal Joke

The Catholic blogosphere is alight with the latest heresy (that's what it is) to come to light.  On February 11, eve of Ash Wednesday, the pope met with those priests designated to be "missionaries of mercy" and gave them instructions and I use the word "instructions" loosely.  The text of the message can be found on Zenit.  Within that address are directives to the priests which, if followed, would render any confession invalid.  I quote below the heresy:

"If someone comes to you and feels something must be removed from him, but perhaps he is unable to say it, but you understand … it’s all right, he says it this way, with the gesture of coming. First condition. Second, he is repentant. If someone comes to you it is because he doesn’t want to fall into these situations, but he doesn’t dare say it, he is afraid to say it and then not be able to do it. But if he cannot do it, ad impossibila nemo tenetur. And the Lord understands these things, the language of gestures. Have open arms, to understand what is inside that heart that cannot be said or said this way … somewhat because of shame … you understand me. You must receive everyone with the language with which they can speak."

Any second-grader preparing to receive the sacraments is taught that in order to receive the Sacrament, they must tell at least their mortal sins to the priest.  No "silent treatment" will suffice.  The blog One Peter Five has a number of passages from relevant Church teaching promulgated over the centuries, including an excerpt from the Council of Trent that states plainly that anyone holding such an opinion that the pope seems to hold is to be anathematized.  At the blog What's Up With The Synod, we see the predicament in which this practice would place an unwitting soul.

Consider for a moment what that last blogger is saying.  Without the recitation of sins to the priest, there is a lack of valid matter to cause the Confession to be valid.  That means any absolution is invalid.  Someone who has mortal sin on their soul who does not confess it would think he/she has received absolution when they really haven't.  They might receive Holy Communion in that state (In that case, I'm not sure they would be culpable of the sin of sacrilege if they, in good faith, thought they were validly absolved).  They might die in that state; I wouldn't want to presume upon their eternal fate.

This is the so-called "year of mercy", right?  But here we have the pope sabotaging the very Sacrament that was instituted to confer God's forgiveness for sins.  He's instructing priests to offer absolution invalidly.  That is to say he's instructing his priests to offer false comfort while still leaving penitents in their wretched states.  The convoluted thinking behind that is the very antithesis of true mercy - at least the pure mercy that God wishes to extend to all of us sinners.

Missionary Mish-Mash

I speak of these "missionaries of mercy".  Last April, Pope Francis said that these priests were going to be mobilized to facilitate the jubilee of mercy somehow.  Actually there is no sin that your ordinary parish priest cannot absolve.  I believe at one time abortion was reserved for the bishop, but most bishops have given their priests faculties to absolve that.

Hilary White is a Catholic writer/blogger.  You'll often see her writings at LifeSiteNews and I have linked to her on occasion.  A few days ago she put out an excellent analysis of the real conundrum that will be caused by these missionaries.  I needn't rehash her points here; I urge you to read her, along with my April piece, to see why we and others think that this stunt with the missionaries will actually serve to undermine the importance of Confession and real repentance in the eyes of Catholics.  In her piece, she posted a video that is an excerpt of one produced by Chris Ferrara and Michael Matt.  I'm posting the entire thing below for what they say is of vital importance.  Before the video I will voice some concerns about one of these "missionaries of mercy".

About thirteen years ago, Steve Brady of Roman Catholic Faithful issued a call to several Catholic bishops to block the priestly ordination of one Patrick Baikauskas to the priesthood and to have him expelled from the Order of Preachers (Dominicans).  He was divorced from his wife and was a gay activist, who lived with his accomplice in mortal sodomite sin until the latter died of AIDS.  Brady's plea fell on deaf ears.  Baikauskas was ordained and eventually became pastor of St Thomas Aquinas Church in West Lafayette IN.  During his time there, the parish participated in a local "gay pride" event, showing that Baikauskas was still quite the gay-rights advocate.  Judie Brown of American Life League took the Archdiocese of Lafayette to task for this, 

Yes, this gay-activist priest is a "missionary of mercy".  One wonders what business he has being a priest, let alone someone invested with special faculties.  God help the poor soul afflicted with same-sex attraction who seeks him out for guidance in living chastely according to the Church's teachings.  This begs the question "how are these priests vetted"?  Why was he selected despite his own obvious struggles with intrinsically disordered inclinations?  Or..was he selected because of them??  What abut the other "missionaries"?  I'm not suggesting that they're all to be avoided, but we see obvious causes for concern here.

Misericordiae Vultus - With Red Flags Flying

With the release of this document two days ago, Pope Francis opened an Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy.  I now link to the English translation as it appears on the Vatican website.  I will also link to commentaries from Rorate Caeli, One Peter Five and Vox Cantoris.  I read this document and have many of the same questions as do my blogging colleagues.  Please read their analyses of this document; they put forth questions and concerns that we all must ponder.

Peppered throughout this thing is a notion that somehow for the past two thousand years, the Church has been somewhat remiss about proclaiming God's mercy.  In section 4, we read silly talk of "walls which too long had made the Church a kind of fortress".  Now before some chide me for "bashing Pope Francis", what does that "walls" crack say about attitudes towards previous pontiffs, from Pius XII on back?

Pope Francis does seem to favor the setting up of false dichotomies.  Here we have a "justice" vs "mercy" straw man conflict.  In section 20 we see an attempt to smooth over the set-up conflict some, but there's always the setting of "mercy" over "justice".  I put those words in quotes for in truth they go hand in hand as equals, for they both describe essential qualities of God Himself; He is all merciful, but He is also all just.

In section 19 he rebukes those engaged in criminal organizations (such as mafia) and those who've allowed money to seduce them to corruption.  I might wonder why those embroiled in sexual vice were not included: those in de facto adultery (euphemistically called "irregular marriages") or those engaging in same-sex relationships.  Did not Our Lady of Fatima state that more souls are damned due to sins of the flesh?  Where is the Spiritual Work of Mercy known as "rebuking the sinner" extended to them?  Please read section 10 of the document.  I am shocked that the Holy Father can speak so disparagingly of the Church's history of preaching God's word and administering the sacraments as to say that the Church as "long since forgotten how to show and live the way of mercy".

Just before section 18 he admonishes confessors to "not ask useless questions, but like the father in the parable, interrupt the speech prepared ahead of time by the prodigal son, so that confessors will learn to accept the plea for help and mercy gushing from the heart of every penitent. In short, confessors are called to be a sign of the primacy of mercy always, everywhere, and in every situation, no matter what."

"Useless questions"??!!!?  What kind of doctor, when diagnosing an illness, does not ask questions of the patient regarding symptoms, etc?  He/she certainly doesn't interrupt the patient as they give information to the doctor to assist in their own cure.  How else can the doctor diagnose the problem and prescribe the appropriate medicine?  To call the questions of the confessor "useless" is a slap in the face to good priests who are merely exercising their sacred duties to assist the sinner to "go and sin no more".  I'll go further and say that such a disparaging adjective as "useless" can only serve to undermine the sacerdotal authority of the priest in the confessional, an authority given by Christ Himself as we heard on the Second Sunday of Easter.

Right after that we have section 18, where these "missionaries of mercy" are introduced to us.  I share the bemusement of my fellow bloggers .I refer you to the analysis and questions put forth by Rorate Caeli.  What can these "missionaries" do that the parish priest can't?  Maybe a question is, "what might they attempt that a parish priest wouldn't?  An "on-the-spot" decree of marriage annulment?  Permitting those in adultery to receive Holy Communion?

Many questions we ask.  Much needs to be examined under high-intensity light.